a thread about the civil unrest in egypt (& elsewhere in 'the region' if necessary)

it is crazy how my western mind keep coming back, irresistibly, to the Spanish civil war and the POUM - it's the only template i have for this stuff i guess (and probably incredibly misleading)

i started thinking about the minutemen, but sure, think of spain, you commie.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/and-the-award-for-best-dictator-goes-to/#more-6566

that is stats geekery at its finest

Looks like the lovely Lukachenko is still Gaddafi's pal...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599205642000

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/libya0302/s_l34_27038152.jpg

everything about that is awesome

v-sign, turban, mustache, break shotgun, string, biblical get-up, cig, hatchet, empty bandolier, phat camo pants, sneakers

we should have an election just so nate silver doesn't have to write articles like that anymore

fuckin A yeah that pic!

wheres that pic from caek

my know-it-all computer tells me the pic's from:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/libya0302/s_l34_27038152.jpg

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/03/battles-across-libya/100018/

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/libya0302/s_l06_09699265.jpg

yeah "in focus" is the guy who used to do the "the big picture" for the boston globe

y

no country for old dictators

Prob shouldn't say so, but that pic reminds me of the tusken raiders from star wars.

Filmed in Tunisia, wasn't it?

Forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi launched renewed airstrikes against two key rebel-held towns Thursday, a day after poorly armed citizens repelled a major government assault on the area.

The day's clashes suggested that in the absence of outside intervention, Libya could be headed toward a long and bloody stalemate. Gaddafi holds Tripoli and other western cities, the rebels control the east, and neither side appears able to decisively shift the balance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030206907.html?hpid=topnews

Time for no-fly zones maybe, despite the risk it will get us further involved if Ghadaffi decides to challenge them.

nah the US guy said it definitely wasn't going to happen

russia wouldn't like it for one thing

So when can we expect Cameron to humiliatingly back down from his call for no-fly zone?

that's the thing. it ought to be massively humiliating. the US guy (gates?) said there'd been 'frankly, loose talk' about a no-fly zone. that's a pretty belittling way to talk about yr oldest special best friend.

lol supine british media

Tom he's already backed down from it.

'frankly, loose talk'

Yeah I heard that, it was Gates. It's like Cameron thinks he's Blair or something...

(xp) Huh, whadhesay whadhesay?

Egypt invites Oprah to promote tourism

http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=29082

(tom i don't think HE said anything but spokesmen made backpedalling noises in hushed tones and you know that's enough for the lobby crew)

RT: @ozaghloul: @mosaaberizing Oprah: You get a revolution! And YOU get a revolution! Look under your seats, everybody gets a revolution!!!

Ha. Oprah, benign dictator that she is, should run for president of Egypt.

The best/smartest thing the US can do is start quietly supporting/fostering the creation of a nascent government in Egypt (offer money, folks to oversee elections, etc.). In Libya, it really has to be more wait and see. Not that we don't want Qaddafi gone - everyone does - but that if we start actively supporting the opposition and they lose, then by default we're officially at war with Libya. Another unintended (or, in some circles, certainly welcome) consequence would be a no-fly zone detente that builds Qaddafi up as a Saddam-like straw man, thus setting the stage for a future extension of ill-fated military meddling in the middle east. Besides, things are changing so fast in several different countries that it feels too soon to commit to a specific vision of the middle east.

the general impression i get from journalists on the ground is that libyan rebels dont want u.s. involvement at all; it's important that their revolution be homegrown and without the taint of us imperialism (esp. now that qaddafi and chavez have been making noise to that effect); one article i read quoted a bunch of fighters saying theyd accept turkish intervention but not US

obv i dont know how far that feeling extends among libyans, could just be the press is eager to think that were doing the right thing by not intervening.

you gotta think that attitude would also be affected by their coming success/failures. I can understand the desire to want to be featured in an 'I got this' gif but w/ every massacre that view is gonna soften a tiny bit. anyway I'm for every country in the world except america intervening.

xpost I have read quotes from Benghazi rebels that diff from this. Basically "we would welcome a no-fly zone as long as no foreign feet hit the ground".

oh yeah ive read that too, i guess i dont quite mean "no u.s. involvement at all" but certainly not troop deployment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022805624.html?hpid=topnews

BENGHAZI, LIBYA - Locked in a standoff with forces loyal to Moammar Gaddafi, opposition leaders here debated Tuesday whether to request foreign airstrikes against the longtime ruler's military installations and other key facilities.

Members of a council governing Benghazi, Libya's second-largest city and the center of the anti-Gaddafi movement, said the issue has taken on increasing urgency amid a realization that the rebels cannot match the weaponry and firepower of the Gaddafi loyalists and that, without foreign help, the stalemate may never end.

it's not just gates, the whole pentagon is pretty chilly about this. but they sort of were about iraq too lol

well all we gotta ask ourselves is "would the world be better off without gaddafi in power" and BAM DEAL DONE

Kuwait brokers an agreement that the UAE will stand with the government of Oman to protect its "stability and security"

http://www.wam.ae/servlet/Satellite?c=WamLocEnews&cid=1293605285429&pagename=WAM/WAM_E_Layout&parent=Query&parentid=1135099399852

through all this i imagine the wargamers and strategyheads in the american government sitting around their offices and their heads just kind of softly exploding

Clearly we need a no-fly zone ASAP to enforce sanctions and allow the inspectors to finish their work searching for Qaddafi's admitted WMD stores and then ... oh, wait.

Encourage the revolt now and watch while it fails. Then invade in 2023.

plan^

xpost I have read quotes from Benghazi rebels that diff from this. Basically "we would welcome a no-fly zone as long as no foreign feet hit the ground".

― every man and woman is a sitar (Jon Lewis), Thursday, March 3, 2011 12:12 PM (57 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

oh yeah ive read that too, i guess i dont quite mean "no u.s. involvement at all" but certainly not troop deployment

― max, Thursday, March 3, 2011 12:15 PM (55 minutes ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/africa/03libya.html

“Yes, they won,” said Iman Bugaighis, a spokeswoman for the rebel governing authority, which asked Western nations to conduct airstrikes against Colonel Qaddafi’s strongholds on Wednesday. “We don’t know how long it will last. He’s getting stronger.”

this is in the hardcopy of the paper, but it's been removed from the version now available online. dunno what to make of that

Wow hmmmmm...

oops!

shakey how do you reconcile this embarassing mishap with your love of the woman's music?

my what?

lol kevin

Clearly we need a no-fly zone ASAP to enforce sanctions and allow the inspectors to finish their work searching for Qaddafi's admitted WMD stores and then ... oh, wait.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, March 3, 2011 5:54 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

u need 2 set yr motherfucker 2 'receive'

ie this is poor analogizing

n e ways, what are you saying, that the UN shouldn't have tried to hem in saddam? because all intervention is bad?